Role Ambiguity in Voluntary Sport Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined perceptions and correlates of role ambiguity among sport administrators in voluntary sport organizations. Building on the seminal work of Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964), a multidimensional measure of role ambiguity in the organizational setting was developed for this purpose. The sample consisted of 79 paid staff and 143 volunteer board members from provincial voluntary sport organizations. Respondents completed an online questionnaire that included items pertaining to role ambiguity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, effort, and demographic variables including age, gender, position, organization tenure, and position tenure. Preliminary support was found for a three-dimensional model of role ambiguity consisting of scope of responsibilities ambiguity, mean-sends knowledge ambiguity, and performance outcomes ambiguity. Role ambiguity was negatively associated with age, job tenure, and organization tenure, with more years of experience reflecting greater role clarity. Greater role ambiguity was also associated with lower levels of satisfaction, organizational commitment, and effort. In addition, ambiguity pertaining to scope of responsibilities was the primary predictor of both satisfaction and organizational commitment, while performance outcomes ambiguity and means-ends knowledge ambiguity significantly predicted effort. Implications for the management of role ambiguity in voluntary sport organizations, and the merits of a multidimensional approach to understanding this phenomenon, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".